Queensland Competition Authority. file ref:444089 Level 19, 12 Creek Street, BRISBANE. QtD 4001

For the Attention of Angus MacDonald

Dear Sir~

QlD COMPETITION AUTHORITY

t 6 JUL 2012 DATE RECEIVED

Subject• Irrigation Prices for Seqwater Central Brisbane WSS: 2013-17

We are stakeholders in the Central Brisbane WSS and hold a current license to draw water from the Brisbane River between Wlvenhoe Dam and Mount Crosby. We would be extremely concerned should the QCA come to the conclusion that the documentation provided by Seqwater provides a justification for any ch~rge to be made for water taken direct from the Brisbane ·River under the capped 7000MI agreement.

·we note that the Femvale Consultation meeting of 22"d June was attended by a very small proportion of the 130 license Holders. We consl.der that the views expressed about th.e level of charging per ML were not representative of our views or the views of the majority of license holders in the Central Brisbane WSS who attended a meeting of lOth July 2012.

We support the views expressed in the attached submission and reqi.JeM the QCA acc;ept this submission on our behalf.

Yours faithfully,

Signature

Holder ............... ~~~ .... ~~-~ ... ~!.'!.?!. .................... . Date f'-111~1~.

Promoting Effective Sustainable Catchment Management

Submission to Queensland Competition Authority

In relation to

Seq water Rural Water

Supply Network Service Plan

For the Central Brisbane River

supply scheme

On Behalf of

The Members of Mid Brisbane River Irrigators Inc

This submission is prepared under 3 main headings

1. Substantiation for there to be no charges for the 7000ML of irrigation water

to be taken from the Central Brisbane River.

2. Reasons why the Seqwater submission outlining costs is flawed.

3. Suggestions as to how improved productivity(maximum use of current

licensed allocations) can be addressed under a no charge regime.

1. Justification for the 7000ml irrigation water to be taken free of charge

a) Neither Somerset nor Wivenhoe were financed and built for irrigation.

(b) In the 70 years since the completion of Somerset Dam and 30 years since

completion of Wivenhoel irrigators have never been required to pay water

charges for drawing water from the river~ despite a number of attempts in the

past to do so.

(c) This matter was clarified once and for all in 1981 that the dams were

constructed for domestic water supply and flood mitigation and not for the

purpose1 in part or whole1 for irrigation. (attached submission 24·2-1981 to

Minister of Water Resources & response to T.G. & L.A. Matthews 21-10-1981)

(c) Neither Seqwaterl nor its predecessor have expended funds~ either capital or

operating1 dedicated to the delivery of bulk untreated water for irrigation

(d) This stretch of the river has never needed either Somerset Dam or Wivenhoe

Dam or any other infrastructure~ to store water~ and water has always been

available for irrigation.

(e) Seqwater cannot identify the cost of any service that is used by irrigators in

drawing water for irrigation purposes. This makes the current proposed charge1

struck on a per mega litre basis1 unrelated to the actual cost of a service to

irrigators~ and therefore at law should neither be recommended nor allowed by

the Queensland Competition Authority

On the other hand the irrigators can point to several ways in which they have contributed to reducing Seqwaters costs and assisting with environmental

obligations.

(f) Involvement of irrigators with SEQCatchments in Catchment

improvement.

(g) During the millennium drought, raising the level of awareness and

keeping the land adjacent to the river green, grassed, and productive. This

action assisted in the control of treatment costs by reducing the volumes of

sediment that accessed the river.

(h) Delaying the closure of the Brisbane Valley Hwy at times of flood.

(Zanow Quarry)

(i)Members with local knowledge kept Seqwater informed about conditions

on the river.

(j) MBRI and its committee contributed $40000 in Counsel fees and 1000's

of hours professional pro bono work to prepare submissions and be

represented at the Queensland Flood Commission. We consider this work

assisted Seqwater and was influential in the Final Report by the Flood

Commission.

2. The following items directly address the relevance of the group of costs that Seqwater have submitted for QCA assessment, and which Seqwater state make

up an appropriate contribution from the irrigators.

(a) It is inconceivable that the Irrigators should be charged in any way for the cost

of operation of Somerset Dam. Even if one discounts the reasons given in Section

l(above) we are unable to see why QCA should consider it can reasonable, fair,

appropriate, or even sensible, to charge irrigators for holding the same water

twice? All Somerset operation maintenance and staffing costs should be removed.

(b) Even if it is considered that a proportion of the operation and maintenance

costs should be charged the current ratio of 2.4% is not sustainable. This ratio is

based on allocation and covers all the variable costs allegedly resulting from these

water volumes. However there is no proof of usage, no warranty on water quality

or volume. There is no compensation should dam water damage our equipment,

or our land, through mismanagement. No guarantee that irrigators will be warned

about deliberate releases within dam management control w ith the potential to

cause damage. There remains a right to for Seqwater to recover from irrigators

costs in excess of those nominated, for matters beyond the control of dam

management. These costs are more than likely to be a double penalty for the

irrigators who may already have incurred similar costs of their own.

(c) In the period 2004 to 2012 there is no doubt that the full allocations have not

been used. There are two primary reasons which are, reduced allocation available

from Seqwater/DERM and extraordinary weather. Neither are within the control

of the irrigator yet the result of these circumstances is that the irrigators cost of

water under the Seqwater proposal would be $175,84. This would be on top of

failed crops due to failed water supply, and a 75% reduction in income during

probably 4 of those 7 years-another double penalty.

(d) We understand from Somerset Regional Council that Seqwater resists

requests from Council to increase the opportunity for the community enjoyment

of their extensive areas of land for recreation. The reason is given, that it will

increase the cost of water treatment. Why should the irrigator pay towards the

up keep of these community service provisions when they are under-used in

order to save treatment costs to the benefit of Seqwater.

2(e) The Seqwater cost structure includes provisions for maintenance to

redundant equipment which is contrary to our understanding of what would be

considered eligible costs.

(f) Seqwater see the cost of water harvesting (pumping into off-stream storage) in

systems unconnected with Central Brisbane, as a legitimate part of irrigators costs.

This seems extraordinary and inappropriate.

(g) Seqwater documented the fact that the Lowood/Fernvale and the Central

Brisbane Flood plain is used in a deliberate strategy, to be sacrificed to assist

reducing flood levels in Brisbane. This information was not shared with

Somerset Regional Council or the irrigators prior to January 2011. Neither is it

planned to be changed. This created considerable cost to Irrigators from the

Wivenhoe Dam water releases in Jan 2010 & Jan 2011 due to

damage/destruction of pumps, associated infrastructure & riverbanks where

pumps were located resulting in disruption/cessation of production."

After the flood, releases from Wivenhoe regularly incurred high operational cost

and risk. This should be discounted against Seqwater's cost.

3. The MBRI considers there is a proportion of the 7000ML per annum not being

used productively for a variety of reasons. It will support attempts to address

( improved productivity, review the reasons, and suggest a strategy that could

reverse this trend. It would be wrong to use an unjustifiable price per ML in an

attempt to improve the productivity, so that all irrigators pay an un-affordable

unit price when the proper solution should be to encourage the use of these

allocations. However it should be noted that the water licenses issued under the

provisions of the Water Act 2000 were not subject to a beneficial use condition.

(see letter from Stephen Robertson to Mr Don Livingstone MP on 26th August

2003.

•

•

. -- -....,_ m aWl

Queensland Water Resources Commission

References 81/884,/16 Telepnone · 224 7378

L9216 M.r. B. Fawcett

GP08ox2454 Brisbane Queensland 4001 , . . ~

21st October, 1981

Messrs. T.G. & :.~. Matthews, M.S. 861, F!:RNVALE. .(. ~305

Oear ·Sirs,

!RRIG.\.TION i'iCM 'SRISBA.'tE RIVER

W!Vi:NROE DAM TO MT. CROSBI 'tiEIR

In April last, irrigators on the Brisbane River bet~een 'Winnb.oe Dem lll4 Kt. Crosby 'Weir were advised that charges would be implemented after 1st July, 1981 for water diverted from tne River tor irrigation.

I nov haTe to aclvise ·that following representations from irrigators, tho Government baa decided that no charge will bo made for w~ter diverted for irrigation •

. ., !iow£iver·, the to~ volume of · water ..,hieh may be d.i verted each year oha.ll not exceed 7 000 me gall tree.

Licenaoee u:t .elect to have either an area aJ.location or c. volumetric: allocation. I! the former is choaen, the area authorised on a:rq property will not exceed 50 hectares which io equi'RJ.ent to 350 megalitres per year or 7 meglllitre:s per hectare per yoar.

I! c irrigator conaidors that his annual ws~;.~ o! water 'Will be lesa than 7 mepli.trea per hectare, he llla3' t.l.ect to h&Te a Tolwlotric allo~tion not exceeciiq 350 mega.l.itrec ~ year which ··rill enablt! him to irrigate W..tever· area he viallea, -:providing hie &%mU.'U ua~ d.oee DOt exceed his authoriatld allocation. In auch caaee, th' liceJWee V'ill be required to pay for th• mppl.J &M inatalla.tion of a meter, which IShall relll&in thC~ propm-t;, ot tho Commiaaioner, to record annual water ua~.

Because preeentl7 indicated requirement• exceed ? 000 megalitree per 19ar, it vill be neceesarr to adjust so.ae propcaed &l.l.oca.tiona, either area or volume, to reduce the groea allocation to 7 000 megali tree.

2/ ••

Mineral House. 41 George Stree~ Brisbane Tetex 417S-:

"'

._,

J'" '- _-.~:.h:t .. ) > .. ~·.~t:!l!:i· .S t 1 ~ >A ~a~1t1 ~~U ">~: i--1 SUE:~d~ :i.~ \!-~; 1~~ .. l:•t. t ).f~...., ;:. _ b- .:.'f~ :: :u •: ·t :.(l_.,a~:~t:.r~ a.:1.<,;. .t.p:Jb.c.hrcr ~ o i··ld~.c.:.te '~}~lVCh:, \' c:tE·Y \::: et . ~ : , • . ·t- ";_ t•.rr:l:;. ur. '''1:! .. 1':cE,·l;_~-·~ n ~.ll'>~e,tion 1-md. l:'.ccc..~:-'~ l\_:).:_y. / 'l.oo!<.. _,·v;:·'-~'e ... \: ·:; ~·) .~rv -~ r;E; X. .. ) ••• :.rt.iJ ··,·J.·i.;il:i..:t1 t~v..J '!H.\s~- : :- :: )~-~"~-,•,1 \:!1,1 ~'•. ~''t~ c>J

\ =;.~<:.ipt o;;. ·.:.L'l:; . .u lo-~;tc:r. :1.~ 1·' ~~a l'~)l\;1.~ ~-~~ ·~•:ci1 ::.v~e: . ·i-t ~ -:i.-~ 1__ '->:: :-As£ ;t& . .,l.L tllP:(; a::· ?.l:ea ~.lloc.J.d.oh .i ~: r-~,,l,:i :!''"'!'~

\~ .. l'·. i•ie:cedi.~;\ •., !;JJCR!i~r;;Al~Y,

. -=··~ ..._-_,._: ..:-~ ..... ""'II:'~

. . . /, .

' l

I /

I

•

•

~~~ • • r;:~. --------------

Submission to the Honourable The Minister !or ',f.l :.::· ~;;se t. ~ ::s

Aboriginal and Island Affairs by a deputation appointed by a meetin~ o! landowners held at Waoora on 24th February, 1981.

Irrigators on the Stanley or Drisbane Rivers c0~:s::e~

!rom Somerset Dam have never been required to pay

!or the water used. Somerset Dam was co:::.structed l!.~d e:- t :~.:

provisions o! Section 6C o! the Bureau~! Indust r y Ac~ . ~ ~ a

purposes tor which the dam was built are stated in ~ ha~

Section ILS "For the purpose of ensuring a.n a.iequa~e sto raa;:l ·.

!or the supply of water t:1 t he City ot· Brisbane a.nd t hd Cit 1 o!

Ipswich, and for the further purpose of preventi~g as t ar

LS may be destruction by flood w&ters in or ahout t he s~id

cities.'' The provision o! water for irrigation was ~

a purpose for which the dam was built. The Act !or ~~o

construction o! the Wivenhoe Da.m does re!er to " ~·ater s't ors.5e

amon~st other things. but does not reter to storage tor

irrigation, a.nd neither the Premier's s.p~h introducing it 1!

Parliament nor any other speeches made in relation t o t be .:11:

make Lny reference to the need !or water !or irrigation.

The financial responsibility for ~he constructioc o!

Somerset Dam was divided between the Government, the Brisbaoe

City Council and the Ipswich City Counctl, with the Bri~ City Council being respon~ible for the major part (56.6~ The dam became operLtional in 1943 but it wa.s not until 1955!

that responsibility for its control and maintenance was

transferred to the Brisbane City Council. That Council was

•

•

~·.

-~--------------------------

~hen required to bear something over 00~ of the cos~s

involved - the balance being made up by the Ipswich City Counci ~

2ormal control was handed over in 1959. At no t~bet~een

1943 and 1959, while the darn remained under Govern~ent co~trol,

was any suggestion made that irrigators downs~ream s~ould te

charRed for water. lomediately after control was vested

in the Brisbane City Council it applied to the r~vernMent

!or the right to meter I!J-1 pump~ between the daC!l and

Yt. Crosby. The application was retused. There were

further requests on more than one occasion but on each occasio~

permission was refused. Statements have been ~ade to t~e

effect that at least one reason for the refusals was the

Government's view that there had.always been ample water

for irrigation in the lower reacheR of the river and that

Somers~ bad not been intended to improve and had-no~ 1~

fact improved the positio~ o! irrigators. However, doc~~nta::

support !or these stateMents has not been forthcoming

at present. Be that as it may, the fact that the statecent

about ample water, if ma.de, was correct is illustrated by t.be

events of drought years before Somerset came on stream in

1943. On a number o! occasions, it is believed in 1902~ 1915 1

1923, 1937 and :finally in 1942 the season was so dry that

the Brisbane City Council could not get sufficient water at

Mr. Crosby to supply its needs. While tte normal flow 1o the

river was adversely a.!:fected, .·there was plenty of wa.ter .

available io long reaches up to a mile or.more in length and u~

to 30ft. deep. These reaches, however, were separat~d by sand

and gravel bars, preventing sufficient flow to keep Mr. Crosby

treatment works supplied. Horse teams with scoops were sent

•

•

3.

up ~he river to cut throu~h each of the sand bars in turc

in order to get the water down to Mt. r~osbp. Clearly there

~as a~ple water available tor all irri~a~ion . The trouble

~as to get water tor Brisbane and, ot course, that is what

Somerset was intended to do and has done.

Where other stora~es have been constructe~ with

irrigation as one ot the purposes for which the storage ~as

being constructed, the proposals ~n relation to 1rri~atlc~

were made public and all aspects were t~rown open for deba:d 1~

the district concerned, tor ex~ple the Leslie Dam, and

the Moogerah Dam. Potential irri~ators who would hene!it

from the storage had ample opportun.i ty to say· whether or n ~)t

they would be happy to pay the charges which were r.roposed.

Without ·any consultation ~ith the landowners co~cerned

the Uinister for Water Resources apparently proposed to the

Government about August 1980 that in tuture all irrigators on

the Brisbane Rive~ below Wivenhoe should be metered and charr,et

$4 per megalitre for water • This involved asking the

Government to resei~d a decision made about 1973 havin~ the

effect that no such charges should be levied. In 1973, o!

course, tbe levyin~ authority would have been the Brisbane

City Council, but the principle is~e s~e .

There was remarkably little publicity about this

proposal. Vost irrigators concerned bad heard nothing about began

it right up until January 1981 when rumours/to circulate

in the district. Finally early in February the Water

•

(

•

4.

r-.esources Commission ~.-rote to tlle irr it:;; a tors ccnce:rra:C:

telling them they wera goi~g to ba chargod from 1 July.

Quite apart !rot'l the lack o! considerat i on of ::, (~ ·; ie;?.

a! the landholders concerned the decision is ustair an~

unreasonable. The opening para~raph of the letter sent ty the

Commission infers that the justification !or tlle cbarge is th>E

fact that the two dans make the water available . :..s po ir: ted

out above, there is absolutely no justif~cation f o r t~ ic

1nfer~e. There was a~ple water !or irrigation in t h is

sectio~ o! the Brisbane River before tbe da~s were built a~d

there would still be sufficient water for that purpose

if the dams bad not been built. At no t~me previously and

certainly not at any time in connection with the legislatio~

authorising the two dams had it ever been suggested that ~

reason for building the dams was to make water available ~or

irrigation. Furthermore it is completely contrary to tb.e

decisions which the Government had made en more t~ac oce occas

from ~1959 on, that irrigators along the r~ver were oat to

be charged for using the water, evec tho~gh it may have

been released from the dam. No attempt ~as made in tbis lette

from the Commission, and none has been ~ade elsewhere, to

explain why more ·than 35 years a!ter the Somerset Dam bad t·een

completed it was necessary to begin imposing chxrges . If the

was or is any justification for ·the·· cbarg~, that justification

arose as soon a.s Somerset became an e!!ee~ive storage - not in

1980 .

No one would argue that it is not reasonable for .ctarg

•

to ~e ~posed wuera a substantial, i! not the ouly, r~asoc for

the coustruction o! a water storage was to giv~ an assurec suppl

in a stream which did not naturally supply sufficient water for

irrigation in a dry time. This was the situation in the exa~ple

given above - Moogerah and Leslie. !3oth the 'Ylarrill Creek

area and the Condamine area did not have water in a dry t~e

and the construction of the two storageseven with the

necessity to pay for water used was a very sound proposi:~o=

for the irrigators downstream. This was not the positio:: ~ith

the Brisbane River, particularly that part of the river

downstream troc Wivanhoe.

The effect of the recent decision is to impose a new ~

tax upon landholders who purchased farms iu one of the few ~

areas of Queensland where there was sufficient water for

irrigatic::. withou't the need for any artificial supplement .

In the context of the current public disc~ssion it

would be about as good (or rather as bad) an example of ~-ra.~t

unjustified resources tax as one could imagine. Its

immediate effect is to wipe substantial L~ounts off the

value of those properties, because obv.busly a property witt

a right to irrigate !rom the river withou~ charges is worth

~ore tba~ the same property where charges up to $1400 per farm

depending upon the amount of land the farmer is entitled to

irrigate are payable for that right. And it must be kept in

mind that in the case ot those !arms which have been purchased

by their present owners since 1959~ they were bought with the

apparently established !act that irrigation licences did not car

a condition that water charges were pa7able, and that right

•

r.

~at have been a component in the ,rtce .

The proposals have other unf~tr and unreason~~l~

provisions. At present each irrigator has his lice~ce wticj

normally limits the size of the pump be can use and t~e area

land· he can irrigate - both reasonable provisioos. Cnde~ t3E

new scheme the irrigator is required to nominate the a~~~~t (

water he proposes to use and to pay for at least 75:. o~ t~at

water whether he uses it or not. As most, if not all, of tJF.

land beio~ irrigated consists o! alluvial flats ~loog c~e

river, _ the f &rmer could be put in the position of hav1n; t~e

whole of his crops wiped out by floods, but still having to

pay for water he cannot use because of t :1e flood. De~a~~ for

water varies substantially between the season of average

rainfall or above and a dry ti~e. To li~1t the amouc~ c!

water a farmer can use in a. dry time and to make itin pa.;.- fo~

75% o! that amount when be cannot use it in a wet year i s

unfair and unreasonable. It is realised that this condition

is un_posed using water trom a storage constructed with

irrigation as one of the re&sons for the project. But the ~·

cases are very different. When the provision o! water tor irrigation is the. or one of the. Teasons tor the

construction of the storage the cost of that water must be

t~ken into account when preparing the necessary budget.

Obviously the authority responsible . for ~ainteoance a.nd

running costs must have a continuing and reliable source o!

funds. !t could f~ce financial disaster 1! it lost a

substantial pnrt of its income in years when there was a

substantial Jrop in irrigation requirements, Consequentl

the need for minimum charges is part of the price the irrigat

I •

\ •

r•',''?":~·-· -------~

7

That 1R not the c~se here. ~either ~oner~et nor ?7ivenho~ c -- ===

was necessary to the irri~ators in qu~stion.

Another objectiC'nable provision is that if !o-r rP.a!Jc ns

which he considers adequce a fart'l~r decides to ceas~ i-:""ri. r,- a t io1

!or a perioc, he is in danger o! losinr. his licence altc~et~ er

with a. threat that it will never he renewerl . There ar ~ ~~uy

instances alon~ the river where for one. rearmn or anot l~er t te

~roperty own~r has decidd~ to limit ir~i~~tion a t lea~~

temporarily. or.e actual case involves a situation w:: c re -::.. <.~

husband hn.s died anc:! the widow, not wishin~-: to l eav~ :1er !:lor:Je

of ~any years·and not being nble to handle the irri~atio~ . nor

rertuir!ng -it :for her livelihood, lHl.f'J decided to stay i~ th f;· be

pronerty as lone as she can, using it to run cattle wit h part-

1: ime help o! !e.Mil}' . Under the new rules ~he must tlurrt:?ntl !:-r ' .. ~ ...

her licence or have it taken away from her, and the

.P.ffec_t on t~f.! value o:f her property will 'be disastrous. A.cc tb '"

case :!.nvolves a fanner who has made the decision to rest =.is 1

from intecsive agriculture tor soMe years. He has converted

it to pasture an~ uses it for gra?.ing. A~ain unless he go~s

~ack to irrigating immediately he risks losing his licence.

In this instance he estimates that he has pernanent irri~at ion

installations,pumps, underground m~i~s, and so on valued Rt

~re than ~20,000. The capital value of the licence to the

property cannot be ealuulatP.d, but unles~ h~ i~~ediately start .

1rri~at1ng it again , like i t or not, he ~osea the value o! bot

There is at least one case in which officers of the Co!!ll::_iss!on

have already persuadert a property owner who was not 1rrigat1~~

• to :::urre.:1der his liceuce. ~Ul these tac!.O.r!:! will do •!0 good

'!or the State, ancl ;;"ill itipose v~ry auver~ burdens on ti!e pro

ouners concerned.

For theso r~aso~s, ~1r, we respect!ully rPque3t

t:1at you tn.ke action to have the decision to :neter irJ·ir.atio:.

pumpR and iMpose char~ea !or t!-Je use o! water on tbat

sectior. of the river, t;;e rescinded.

27th April, 1961.

l •